Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Selected benchmarking results for IT operations in 2011-2013 Pekka Kähkipuro 15.11.2012.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Selected benchmarking results for IT operations in 2011-2013 Pekka Kähkipuro 15.11.2012."— Presentation transcript:

1 Selected benchmarking results for IT operations in Pekka Kähkipuro

2 Benefits of benchmarking IT performance booster –Gain understanding through comparison with peer institutions –Understand your relative position amongst the competition –Learn more about your own IT environment Tool for University strategy execution –Is our institution really executing its strategy, giving the knowledge on what the others are doing Why is the European context needed –Higher Education is a global business – national benchmarking does not provide enough information –The best comparison partners (i.e. a universities with a similar profile) may be difficult to find from your own country –EDUCAUSE focuses on US style HE institutions and metrics –Commercial services are expensive and limited in many ways

3 Aalto IT costs and personnel in 2011 Costs 2010 M€ M€ 2011 Centralized IT costs12,367 %16,559,4 % IT costs in other central units2,06 %0,82,9 % IT costs in academic units5,027 %9,735,1 % Total IT costs19,3100 %27,7100 % IT share of university costs5,1 % 6,8 % Personnel2010 FTE FTE2011 Centralized IT personnel ,1 % IT personnel in other central units966 %114,9 % IT personnel in academic units684 %5625,1 % Total IT personnel22730 % % IT share of university personnel4,8 % 4,3 %

4 IT technology volumes in 2011 Logical Servers Data centers Major 2011 Minor 2011 Area By OS X86 Linux %Centralized22300 m 2 X86 Windows43625 %Distributed m 2 Other (Unix, etc.)975 %Total m 2 By org In centralized IT61035 % In distributed IT %Common storage 2010 Tb 2011 Tb Physical servers total %Storage in centralized IT In centralized IT24026 %Storage in distributed IT Workstations Total Total By OS Windows Linux Network / phones / other MacOS and other Active LAN ports By type Desktops Number parallel WLAN users Laptops and other Network/multifunction printers By known use Personal use Service desk tickets annually Classroom Laboratory use608449

5 Note: central IT is fully visible, distributed is probably not, so the real figure might be even higher

6 IT Spending as % of OPEX AY = Aalto University HY = Helsinki University TUT = Tampere University of Technology UiO = University of Oslo NTNU = Norwegian University of Science and Technology Universities with technical inclination share a common pattern

7 End-User support divided to schools and faculties Application development increase expected: renewal projects are about to start

8 Share of IT costs within organization AY = Aalto University HY = Helsinki University TUT = Tampere University of Technology UiO = University of Oslo NTNU = Norwegian University of Science and Technology Different organizational approaches, but distributed IT is present in most cases

9 Security support

10 Run cost is high, education average is also (too) high

11 Incident management Aalto’s process is not able to track all incidents

12 Selected findings and related actions Initiatives to improve performance 34 data centers Data center consolidation initiative High number of workstations and high FTE in support More collaboration with schools to reduce overlapping work Increase workstation support efficiency (automation, process) Increase in storage requirements Initiative to support increasing needs in the academic community. Increase in mobility Initiatives to make mobile services and increase mobility. Oversized end-user services Initiative to increase incident management efficiency

13 Summary Benefits for the IT organization –Identify performance improvement needs –Finding the right distribution of resources for services –Source of new ideas: What have others done What could be done differently Benefits for the institution –Is the institution directing its resources correctly (IT vs. other options) –Are there ways to increase competitiveness through IT Findings –Comparison with a handful of peers is not enough to get the full picture –Time and effort is needed to understand results and to realize the benefits –The process itself is already very useful

14 Additional slides A bit more on the started actions

15 High number of workstations and high FTE in support Personnel moving towards ”PC + laptop” model –Is this really what Aalto wants? Spend distribution and costs at schools indicate overlapping work –Better division of work and harmonization of work practices –Additional measures to be taken later Justification for the 2nd round in the migration project (and even the 3rd round)

16 34 data centers 2011: We discovered 20 data centers 2012: We discovered 34 data centers Conclusions –New data center concept (2013) –Data center consolidation project (2014 onwards) –Communicated to the school level

17 Increase in storage requirements Knowledge through BM and stakeholder meetings. Storage program initiated in –Focus on supporting research storage requirements. Different needs and different solutions –Fast storage –Cloud storage –Cheap storage –Secure storage

18 Mobility increase Big increase in mobile devices –Changing fixed lines into mobile phones 75% of new phones are smartphones –Mobile platform support (m.aalto.fi) Network renewal program –Changing network architecture to support the increased need –New network architecture (4 IP addresses per person)

19 Incident management efficiency Need to increase incident management efficiency –Project to improve incident management efficiency and tools. Need to build a common model with our schools –Common process –Common tools –Transparency across organization boundaries


Download ppt "Selected benchmarking results for IT operations in 2011-2013 Pekka Kähkipuro 15.11.2012."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google